New Tuberculosis vaccine candidate safe in HIV- and non-HIV-exposed newborns(mpg.de)
mpg.de
New Tuberculosis vaccine candidate safe in HIV- and non-HIV-exposed newborns
https://www.mpg.de/19040549/0801-bich-tuberculosis-vaccine-candidate-vpm1002-safe-in-hiv-and-non-hiv-exposed-newborns-as-study-shows-17216463-x
11 comments
Here’s the paper, in case you missed the link on the left sidebar: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
If it's new then it is irresponsible to call it safe, as there has not been a long enough period since it has been used in people to determine long term effects.
Long-term effects after vaccination start early (during the first hours to weeks, rarely month) and are called like that because they last long. From what I recall there are no adverse effects known that started years after administration of a vaccine.
My lord, by that standard how can you ever justify buying anything? A new car, a new house?
The answer is obvious: this isn't the first time we've created a car, a house or a vaccine. We broadly speaking understand the risk profile. We test extensively on cell lines, on models, on animals and on humans. We know the ways they can hurt us and we test for them.
I don't know how we got to this place of flat out rejection of scientific method and processes. Just because it goes inside you instead of get slapped on the outside or put around you?
The answer is obvious: this isn't the first time we've created a car, a house or a vaccine. We broadly speaking understand the risk profile. We test extensively on cell lines, on models, on animals and on humans. We know the ways they can hurt us and we test for them.
I don't know how we got to this place of flat out rejection of scientific method and processes. Just because it goes inside you instead of get slapped on the outside or put around you?
I feel like we need a billion dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate reproducible proof of vaccine dangers.
Simply stating that something is dangerous is easy for anyone to do. There's no skin in the game, no burden of proof, and most frequently no domain expertise.
Simply stating that something is dangerous is easy for anyone to do. There's no skin in the game, no burden of proof, and most frequently no domain expertise.
That's ludicrous, people who are concerned about vaccine safety have the most direct 'skin in the game', as they decide if they agree to being injected some substance mix X, more over the burden of proof certainly isn't on them to prove it's not safe, quite the opposite.
Verbatim from the fda.gov Package Insert for COMIRNATY (what the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is theoretically called in the US):
https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS 5.1 Management of Acute Allergic Reactions Appropriate medical treatment used to manage immediate allergic reactions must be immediately available in the event an acute anaphylactic reaction occurs following administration of COMIRNATY. 5.2 Myocarditis and Pericarditis Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential longterm sequelae. The CDC has published considerations related to myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, including for vaccination of individuals with a history of myocarditis or pericarditis (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-consideration...).
How can I get in touch with you in regards to this prize?
https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS 5.1 Management of Acute Allergic Reactions Appropriate medical treatment used to manage immediate allergic reactions must be immediately available in the event an acute anaphylactic reaction occurs following administration of COMIRNATY. 5.2 Myocarditis and Pericarditis Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential longterm sequelae. The CDC has published considerations related to myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, including for vaccination of individuals with a history of myocarditis or pericarditis (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-consideration...).
How can I get in touch with you in regards to this prize?
There has not been a long enough period since it has been used in people to determine long term effects.
Given that this study started in 2015… yes, there has. You should make sure to review articles before commenting on them, otherwise you risk inadvertently encouraging the spread of misinformation.
Given that this study started in 2015… yes, there has. You should make sure to review articles before commenting on them, otherwise you risk inadvertently encouraging the spread of misinformation.
Even Paul Offit said things similar to what other people have been saying in this thread related to serious side effect onset time, but what people didn't realize (or did but ignored for expediency) is that you can't detect rare side effects without giving the vaccine to millions of people in each demographic, not just in total. In the COVID-19 vaccine rollout for example not enough people in the myocarditis high risk zone (males from the onset of puberty to 30, approximately, as well as others at lower but still significant risk) for months got vaccinated for months after the EUA was granted, so they only picked up on the issue for real four months later in April 2021, and did not start putting out warnings in full force until May 2021. This probably could have been picked up by taking troponin readings multiple times in the days after each dose in the trials, but after age and sex stratification, the signal may have been weak. The FDA and CDC have hardly corrected to the extent I think is needed, and the good changes they made were pretty hushed and weak, such as the language around increased dose spacing in myocarditis high risk zone patents. VRBPAC never was able to do a age and sex stratified risk analysis for the first booster either, let alone the second and third. Paul Offit does not recommend you get any boosters unless you are high risk, including just being old (ask: am I eligible for Paxlovid? If not, don't get any boosters.).
This is why I advise people against the MMR vaccine. It's only been 50 or so years since it was given to everyone. We don't yet know if those first batch of children will suddenly drop dead at the age of 60. And with an average lifespan of 78, that's 18 years lost per person!
That's like one extra child not making it to adulthood per person. Three hundred million deaths! #StopTheMMR
That's like one extra child not making it to adulthood per person. Three hundred million deaths! #StopTheMMR